Perry's claims of tax relief through Constitutional Amendments yields tax increases instead

Peter Stern on Perry's Truthfulness
2005's Proposed Amendment 12: Revisited After 2 Years

Once a liar, always a liar!

Several years ago Texas Gov. Rick Perry put on his ten-gallon Stetson, saddled-up his tax-paid plane and rode all over the state lobbying to eliminate what he and his special interest health care industry called "frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits."

Texans were promised that if they voted for this proposal, they soon would see a reduction in the costs of health care and medical related services.

Well, just as in the most recent proposed amendment election where only 8 percent of all registered voters approved ALL 16 amendments, back in 2005 Perry and his good ol' boys got what they wanted. Proposition 12 was approved and Texans were duped.

Looking at it 2 years later you don't have to be an Einstein or brain surgeon to see that Perry was touting another pack of lies, just as he did this time re: Proposed Amendment 15, a.k.a., "the cure for cancer."

Also 2 years ago Perry lobbied to deregulate higher education tuition, promising Texans that doing so would decrease the cost of a college education while making institutions more competitive. That proposition was approved also. After 3 successive tuition increases since the proposal was accepted, tuition costs are the highest ever in the state.

In another 2 years Texans again will see what a load of buffalo chips their governor REALLY is regarding Prop. 15.

By the way, I just got another letter from Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Texas telling me that they have to increase my family's premium again and another notice from the University of Texas stating it regrets having to increase my children's tuition!

Peter Stern of Driftwood, Texas, a former director of information services, university professor and public school administrator, is a political writer well-known and published frequently throughout the Texas community and nationwide. He is a disabled Vietnam veteran and holds three post-graduate degrees.

Hutchison amendment to ban tolling existing interstates survives

What's amazing about this effort is that this language had been stripped at the beginning of the conference committee, and our delegation, particularly Senator Hutchison, Rep. Rodriguez, and Rep. Edwards, had to fight tooth and nail (freshman Rodriguez had to go against his own committee chairman) against the pro-privatization forces just to get this short-term moratorium back in the bill (and this doesn't even stop any current projects, imagine the blood bath if it did).

This language only prohibits buying back interstates and tolling them without making changes to the road. However, all "managed lane" projects (adding toll lanes on existing right of way already paid for by taxpayers) can still move forward. This provision only lasts until next September...we need to FIGHT HARD to make this permanent to eliminate ANY tolling of ANY existing right of way!

Keep Toll Moratorium in Transportation Bill


Reps. Edwards, Granger, Rodriguez, Gonzalez and Lampson Join Sen.
Hutchison to Keep Toll Amendment in THUD Appropriations Conference


WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), a member of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations subcommittee, today joined with five members of the TexasCongressional delegation, Reps. Chet Edwards (D-TX), Kay Granger (R-TX), Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX), Charlie Gonzalez (D-TX) and Nick Lampson (D-TX), to overcome opposition which threatened an amendment to ban the tolling of interstate highways in Texas. Their collective efforts resulted in the amendment remaining part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 THUD Appropriations bill, which tonight was reported out of conference. The conference report is expected to pass both houses of Congress.

“Today we are one step closer to protecting Texas taxpayers from paying twice for a highway,” Sen. Hutchison said. “I will continue working with my colleagues to push for a permanent prohibition of tolling existing federal highways.”

“Using toll roads to double-tax Texans is just plain wrong,” Rep. Rodriguez said. “I am very pleased that the final Transportation conference agreement contains an anti-tolling provision for federal highways in Texas. The citizens of Texas have spoken and they do not want the federal highways they have already paid for to be converted into toll roads. Working with Senator Hutchison, we put progress over politics for the benefit of Texas.”

On September 12, the Senate passed the Hutchison amendment that protects Texas taxpayers by placing a one-year moratorium on tolling existing federal highways in Texas. Sen. John Cornyn (R–TX) cosponsored Sen. Hutchison’s stand-alone bill.

Efforts to toll newly constructed lanes or new highways would not be prohibited in Sen. Hutchison’s amendment that passed the Senate, or in S. 2019 or H.R. 3510.

“We could not have emerged victorious tonight if all six of us had not banded together and fought for this amendment together,” said Sen. Hutchison. “I sincerely thank Congresswoman Granger and Congressmen Edwards, Rodriguez, Gonzalez and Lampson for their hard work on this issue. Our Texas delegation was united on this issue and everyone pitched in to achieve this victory for Texas taxpayers. We are moving forward with legislation that will ban the tolling of interstate highways in Texas until at least September 30, 2008, and we will continue pushing for a permanent ban.”

In February the Texas Department of Transportation released their legislative agenda in a report called “Forward Momentum,” which seeks changes in federal law that would allow such buybacks for the purpose of tolling interstate highways.

Economy expected to slow significantly; gas hits $5 a gallon in CA!

Link to article here.

Wall St. selloff continues...
FED CHIEF TELLS CONGRESS ECONOMY MAY SLOW SIGNIFICANTLY
By Paul LaMonica, CNN Money Editor
November 8, 2007

In testimony before Congress' joint economic committee, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says the central bank is concerned about credit crunch and rising oil prices.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, warning that higher inflation and weaker economic growth could be in store, told Congress Thursday that the central bank is keeping a close eye on the subprime mortgage crisis and recent spike in oil prices.

Bernanke, testifying before Congress' Joint Economic Committee, said in written testimony that since the Fed last met on Oct. 30-31 and decided to cut interest rates, "financial market volatility and strains have persisted."

"Incoming information on the performance of mortgage-related assets has intensified investors' concerns about credit market developments and the implications of the downturn in the housing market for economic growth," Bernanke said in his prepared remarks.

He also expressed concern that the rise in energy prices - oil is now trading at about $97 a barrel - could lead to both higher inflation and weaker levels of economic growth.

"In addition, further sharp increases in crude oil prices have put renewed upward pressure on inflation, and may impose further restraint on economic activity."...

Link to article here.

Gas Prices Hit $4 In California

KSBW-TV, Monterey
November 7, 2007
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - The American Automobile Association of California says some drivers are now paying $4 a gallon for regular unleaded gasoline. Crude oil prices hit an all-time high Wednesday, above $98 a barrel and analysts say with worldwide oil demand rising -- it is still not clear just how high prices will go. In Salinas, AAA recorded an average of $3.39 per gallon. Santa Cruz is at an average of $3.37 per gallon.

KSBW checked and found gas in Gorda, south of Big Sur, is even higher. Drivers there are paying $5 for gas. Over the past two weeks gas has gone up 15 cents in California alone, according to AAA.

91% polled gave vote of "no confidence" in TxDOT

This demonstrates the disconnect between the ballot box in a low turnout election today and the growing public sentiment against TxDOT and the direction the Governor and Legislature is taking our highway system....down the path of billions in debt for toll roads that cost 3-4 times as much to build and 20-30 times more expensive to use!

Controversial Trinity toll road squeaks by voters...BIG MONEY wins again

Link to article here.

Dallas voters endorse Trinity toll road
November 6, 2007
By BRUCE TOMASO / The Dallas Morning News
The Trinity toll road lives.

With all but a handful of Dallas precincts counted late Tuesday, a ballot measure to kill the high-speed highway inside the Trinity River levees was losing by a 53-47 margin.

The vote means the city's Trinity River project, an ambitious plan to transform the barren river corridor, will proceed as planned. In addition to the highway, the project includes increased flood protection, a downtown park and other recreational amenities.

Proposition 1 would have forbidden construction of any road inside the river levees unless that road were four or fewer lanes, had a speed limit of 35 mph or less, and provided direct access to the riverside park.

The language was written expressly to kill plans by the city and the North Texas Tollway Authority to build a high-speed toll road inside the levees.
The Trinity toll road – officially known, much to the chagrin of its opponents, as the Trinity Parkway – would run from U.S. 175 southeast of downtown Dallas to where State Highway 183 branches off from the Stemmons Freeway near Texas Stadium.

The road is envisioned by its designers as a reliever route to help ease congestion along Stemmons and in the freeways that meet in the Canyon and Mixmaster along the southern edge of downtown. State highway planners have said that construction of a reliever route is necessary if work is to proceed on a $1 billion project to untangle the Canyon and Mixmaster.

Nothing in Proposition 1 would prohibit construction of a reliever highway elsewhere. Dallas City Council member Angela Hunt, who led the fight to kill the Trinity road, said she was not against building a high-speed toll road; she was just against building it next to the downtown park that is planned inside the river levees.

At the McKinney Avenue Contemporary theater, where Ms. Hunt was gathered with about 150 supporters, the crowd was taking the early vote numbers in stride.

Former Dallas City Council member Craig Holcomb, a staunch supporter of the Trinity project as currently conceived, called the early totals "a great sign."

Supporters of the road argued that no good alternative routes existed. The best of a bad lot, they say, would be to run the highway along where Industrial Boulevard and Irving Boulevard are today.

That alignment would require the displacement of more than 230 existing businesses, according to the North Texas Tollway Authority.

Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert and others said acquisition of those business properties through condemnation would result in lengthy and costly litigation with property owners. The NTTA estimates that building the toll road along Industrial would cost at least $300 million more than building it inside the river levees, where the right or way is unobstructed and already owned by the city.

But none of those arguments were persuasive to those who simply thought it foolish to build a toll road next to a park.

Ms. Hunt often joked in debates that she didn't know of anyone who wanted to have a picnic next to the Dallas North Tollway. Former mayoral candidate Sam Coats, another opponent of the Trinity Parkway, said at one debate that by voting yes, Dallas residents could send this message to the power structure: "You're not going to screw up this park by putting a tollway in it."

Until a year ago, the Trinity toll road hadn't figured in a public conversation, and certainly not a heated one, in a long time. Voters had approved a Trinity road – albeit narrowly – as part of a 1998 bond issue. The proposal withstood several rounds of lawsuits by environmentalists. And in 2003, the Dallas City Council unanimously adopted what became the working design for the toll road – four lanes where it would pass through the central city, six lanes elsewhere, all of them on the downtown side of the river corridor.

Planning along those lines was proceeding – perhaps agonizingly slowly, but without controversy.

Then along came Ms. Hunt, an energetic young trial lawyer with a knack for asking questions and little patience for ambiguous answers.

After her election in 2005, Ms. Hunt was appointed by Mayor Laura Miller to the City Council's Trinity River Project Committee. As Ms. Hunt tells it, as she attended committee meetings, she grew increasingly frustrated by the lack of precise information from the city staff on the costs and timetable for completion of the Trinity project.

In particular, she said, she grew concerned that the cost of the toll road was spiraling out of control – it's now $1.3 billion and climbing – while other aspects of the Trinity project, notably the downtown park, remained woefully underfinanced.

The final straw, for her, came last November. That was when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers informed the city that the toll road would encroach farther into the park. In the wake of the Katrina disaster, the Corps had grown leery of the city's plans to build the road into the side of the levee – the Corps' engineers wanted it moved so it didn't touch the levee at all.

That realignment would reduce the size of the downtown park by more than 40 acres.

Ms. Hunt said enough.

In March, she announced that she would lead a campaign to let voters decide whether to keep or scrap the toll road. In June, she and volunteers from the group she'd started, TrinityVote, turned in boxes of signed petitions to the city secretary.

Ms. Hunt needed 48,000 valid signatures to force her measure onto the ballot. More than 52,000 names that she turned in were validated, and on Aug. 15, the City Council reluctantly approved placing Proposition 1 on the ballot.

The election pitted Ms. Hunt against the mayor and many prominent civic and business organizations. All 14 of her fellow council members opposed her referendum. So did the entire county commissioners court, the entire North Texas congressional delegation, and every Chamber of Commerce in the city. When making his first council committee appointments as the new mayor, Mr. Leppert made a point to exclude Ms. Hunt from the Trinity River committee.

Former Mayor Ron Kirk opposed the anti-tollway measure. So did former Mayor Miller. So did Ed Oakley, the former council member who ran against Mr. Leppert for mayor. So did Veletta Forsythe Lill, Ms. Hunt's predecessor as the councilwoman from District 14 and her onetime political mentor.

Her opponents raised and spent far more money. The Dallas Citizens Council, representing the leaders of the city's most prominent businesses, gave $200,000 to the Vote No campaign, by far the largest single donation to either side.

None of that seemed to faze Ms. Hunt. From the beginning, she reveled in portraying the TrinityVote campaign as a populist one, in which the little guy would have his say, no matter what the downtown suits thought about it.

"There are some politicians who want to pave the Trinity," she said on the day TrinityVote turned in its petitions. "But as of today, that decision is no longer in their hands. … They'll get a chance to vote on this at the polls like everybody else. But their vote won't carry any more weight than yours."

Oil goes over $97 a barrel! Toll roads unsustainable!

Link to article here.

Getting the feeling our transportation & energy policies are unsustainable? You're right! It's like our politicians are taking our country off a cliff and no one is doing anything about it. See how these oil prices mean toll roads are NO LONGER FINANCIALLY VIABLE here.

Oil Hits $97 on Bombs, Demand Prediction
Crude Prices Soar Past $97 a Barrel on Middle East Bombings, Government Demand Expectations
November 6, 2007
By John Wilen, AP Business Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- Oil futures jumped to a new record above $97 a barrel Tuesday after bombings in Afghanistan and an attack on a Yemeni oil pipeline compounded the supply concerns that have driven crude prices higher in recent weeks.
Those concerns were further fed by a government prediction on Tuesday that domestic oil inventories will fall further this year while consumption rises.

Oil was already up before news of the blasts in northern Afghanistan that killed 64 people and the attack in Yemen. Severe weather forecasts for the North Sea, expectations that domestic crude supplies fell last week and the weak dollar all contributed to the latest move upward.


While Afghanistan doesn't produce much oil, traders watch for the possibility that any escalation in the conflict there between U.S. armed forces and Islamic militants could spill over into other countries, disrupting oil supplies out of the Middle East.

John Kilduff, vice president of risk management at MF Global UK Ltd., noted that the attack in Yemen "has disrupted a pipeline that carries 155,000 barrels a day of crude."

Meanwhile, investors believe crude supplies are declining in the U.S. Analysts surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires predict, on average, that crude oil inventories fell by 1.6 million barrels last week. The Energy Department's Energy Information Administration will issue its weekly inventory report on Wednesday. Oil futures' rise above $90 a barrel has been fueled in part by two weeks of unexpected declines in inventories.

On Tuesday, the EIA predicted oil consumption will rise in the fourth quarter and next year despite higher prices, and that inventories will fall.

"Strong demand, limited surplus capacity, falling inventories and geopolitical concerns continue to weigh on the market," the EIA said in its monthly Short-Term Energy Outlook.

The weak dollar, which fell to a new low against the euro Tuesday, is also lifting oil prices. Oil futures offer a hedge against a weak dollar, and oil futures bought and sold in dollars are more attractive to foreign investors when the greenback is falling.

Light, sweet crude for December delivery rose $2.63 to $96.61 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange Tuesday after earlier rising as high as $97.07, a new trading record.

Other energy futures also rose Tuesday. December gasoline futures jumped 5.52 cents to $2.4363 a gallon on the Nymex, while December heating oil futures added 6.46 cents to $2.6085 a gallon.

Natural gas for December delivery fell 13.8 cents to $7.861 per 1,000 cubic feet on the Nymex on predictions for mild temperatures next week in the Midwest and Northeast, and expectations that inventories, already at record levels, will continue to rise.

In London, Brent crude rose $2.59 to $93.08 a barrel on the ICE Futures exchange. A number of North Sea oil platforms were being evacuated Tuesday in advance of expected severe weather.

At the pump, meanwhile, gas prices continued to rise, following oil's 39 percent price jump since August. The national average price of a gallon of gas jumped 2 cents overnight to $3.024 a gallon, according to AAA and the Oil Price Information Service.

Separately, the EIA reported that diesel fuel prices reached a national average of $3.303 a gallon, a new record.

On Wednesday, analysts also expect the EIA to report that gasoline inventories rose by 200,000 barrels during the week ended Nov. 2, while supplies of distillates, which include heating oil and diesel fuel, fell by 500,000 barrels.

The analysts expect that refinery use grew by 0.8 percentage point to 87 percent of capacity.

Oil inventories likely fell due to a suspension of output at Mexico's state oil company Petroleos Mexicanos, a major crude exporter to the United States, which temporarily shut its ports last week due to severe weather.

"The oil market is really supported by the tight inventories in the U.S. market and the general expectations for the inventory report this week are that the crude inventories will likely fall," said Victor Shum of Purvin & Gertz Inc. in Singapore.

Crude prices are within the range of inflation-adjusted highs set in early 1980. Depending on the how the adjustment is calculated, $38 a barrel then would be worth $96 to $103 or more today.

Associated Press Writers Pablo Gorondi in Budapest and Gillian Wong in Singapore contributed to this report.

Non-compete clauses ensure toll operators will be richly rewarded

Noncompete clauses ensure toll operators will be richly rewarded
11/06/2007
By Carlos Guerra
San Antonio Express-News

Ever wish you weren't right?
In 1997, the notion of selling off publicly owned infrastructure to private sector operators was coming into its own.

After the city hired a consultant to determine the value of the publicly owned CPS Energy, it raised red flags.

CPS consistently charges some of Texas' lowest utility rates while providing a significant chunk of the city's revenue, I argued. Profit motives can produce wondrous results. But uncontrolled, they can also produce costly disasters.

Some things — especially those that efficiently deliver services that are essential — are best kept in the public sector to assure accountability and to prevent gouging.

"We would never consider selling Loops 410 and 1604, Interstates 10, 35 and 37 to private investors," I wrote at the time. "Does anyone doubt that they would not turn them into toll roads and render us subject to their price demands?"


But hey, what did I know.

Despite massive public opposition, by 2004, plans for a massive system of privately operated toll roads were already well developed at the Texas Department of Transportation. Agency officials answered critics of toll-road proposals by insisting that toll roads were absolutely necessary. They were, in fact, inevitable because the state's fuel taxes simply weren't generating the revenue for badly needed highways.

And besides, they said, free, un-tolled alternative lanes will always be provided for those who don't — or can't — pay.

They did, however, concede that private-sector operators would receive some sort of "noncompete clauses" to assure investors that their toll roads would actually be profitable.

When pressed for details, they said that public roads already planned for construction over the next 25 years could still be built or improved. But if roads that compete with toll roads were built or widened, the state would have to reimburse operators for the lost revenues.

As transportation writer Patrick Driscoll reported Monday, TxDOT very quietly inked a deal in March with a consortium composed of Spanish financial behemoth Cintra and San Antonio-based Zachry Construction to build a 40-mile section of Texas 130 and collect tolls on it for 50 years.

The four-lane road will be built roughly parallel to I-35 from Austin to Seguin. In time, it will be part of a statewide system of pay-as-you-go lanes that will supposedly fund construction of other highways.

Details of the contract's noncompete agreement, however, provide disturbing insights into what is likely to be part of future public-private deals.

In essence, a complex system that will richly reward TxDOT has been set up to encourage drivers to take toll lanes and fines the state for encouraging them to use free lanes.

An essential element of the noncompete agreement involves manipulating speed limits on both Texas 130 and I-35. Through either of the options, the state gets more money for setting higher speed limits for the toll lanes and keeping current speed limits, or even lowering them, on the free lanes.

If TxDOT sets the speed limit on the toll roads at 70 mph, for example, it will get a $25 million payment upfront. But if it allows traffic to zoom on tolled lanes at 80 mph, it will get $92 million, and $125 million for allowing 85 mph. This, however, is only part of this convoluted tale.

Under a second option, TxDOT will also receive a significantly larger percentage of the tolls collected if it allows higher speed limits on the toll road.

In year eight of the 50-year contract, for example, the agency will get only 4.65 percent of the first $82 million collected, and 9.3 percent of the next $47 million that comes in.

If, on the other hand, it allows traffic to move at 80 mph, those percentages will rise to 9.05 percent and 18.1 percent, and to 11.05 percent and 22.1 percent for allowing 85 mph.

Since TxDOT is also empowered to set speed limits on highways that are not tolled — such as I-35 — guess what is likely to happen on that highway?

$5 billion in bond debt for more toll roads passes

Link to article here. Government goes to those who show up, and with low turnout once again and a dizzying number of amendments to sort through, most didn't make the effort to educate themselves and go vote so the bad guys win again.

I can tell you who did show up...those wanting the taxpayer-funded government handouts. Like, the highway lobby and bond investors. When you look at the vote totals for the highway bonds versus the other props, a good 20-30% of the vote was shaved off compared to the margins the other amendments passed with, and we did that with next to no resources. Couple that with more vague ballot language that doesn't mention the words "toll roads," and TxDOT and the road lobby get their magic potion to rope in enough employees and hookwink enough un-informed voters (who don't even know that bonds are debt to be repaid with our tax dollars requiring a staggering amount of interest) to get their amendment passed.

TxDOT keeps winning the proverbial taxpayer lottery considering the Legislature just DOUBLED TxDOT's bonding capacity to $6 BILLION in SB 792 only months ago. It was NO ACCIDENT that proponents failed to mention that while pushing Prop 12 and opining about the lack of funds for roads.

Measures to fund highways, student loans OK'd
By Peggy Fikac
Express-News Austin Bureau
November 06, 2007
AUSTIN -- Billions of dollars in bonds for highways, student loans, parks, lockups and other projects, more light on lawmakers' votes and new protection for family-violence survivors were approved by voters in Tuesday's election.

Backers celebrated passage of the constitutional amendments as step forward for Texas, although Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, House Appropriations Committee chairman, kept a certain perspective.

"Each one of them has importance of its own," he said, but added, "There's nothing on there that the government would up and quit running over."


Some supporters and opponents of the ballot proposals, however, waged their arguments as furiously as if the very existence of government depended upon their passage.

The money

The bond proposals pitted advocates of state projects against fiscal conservative groups wary of the debt that must be repaid with interest.

The biggest bond proposal, Proposition 12, authorized up to $5 billion for highways and for the first time will allow state road debt to be repaid with state general revenue. Supporters called it crucial to help meet state road needs because gas tax revenue falls short and there's a hot dispute over how much toll roads should be used. Critics of the Texas Department of Transportation's toll plans said the agency wasn't to be trusted with the additional money.

Proposition 4, with a majority of the vote in early returns, would authorize up to $1 billion for a range of government projects. Among them are a new Texas Youth Commission lockup, potential new prisons if state leaders give the OK, repairs to state parks and the Battleship Texas, renovation of facilities for people with mental retardation or mental illness, and new Department of Public Safety regional offices in Rio Grande City, McAllen and Lubbock.

The prison portion of the proposal drew opposition to the entire package from the Texas Criminal Justice
Coalition, which said new prisons are unnecessary. Supporters said it's important to have the option to build if more prison space is needed and that the other projects are important.

Two proposals would drive more money to programs that help students and people who live in poor areas of the state.

Proposition 2, which was approved, would allow up to $500 million in bonds for student loans in a program that depends on students' loan repayment to support itself. Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, vice chairwoman of the Senate Finance Committee, said, "I think it will open doors for low-income college students."

Proposition 16, with a lead in early returns, would authorize an additional $250 million to build water and wastewater infrastructure for economically distressed areas.

The victims

Supporters of Proposition 13, which passed, aimed at providing better protection to family violence victims, citing the San Antonio shooting death of Evairene O'Connor by her ex-husband.
Matthew O'Connor, who was due in court for violating a protective order, posted bond and got out of jail, then headed to his former wife's apartment, killing her and fatally shooting himself, said proposition supporters Rep. Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, and Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed.

The proposition will allow judges to deny bail to someone accused of a family violence offense if the person had previously been out on bail but had bond revoked for posing a threat. Or judges could deny bail to someone accused of violating a protective order.

The lawmakers

To shine more light on legislative action, Proposition 11 will require lawmakers to record their votes on final passage of all legislation except some local bills. The lawmakers' votes will be placed in House or Senate journals for public review and be available on the Internet for at least two years.
House and Senates rules already require record votes on final passage, but backers said the constitutional amendment will prevent the requirement from being lifted in the future.

The proposal won't require record votes in other key areas, such as when preliminary approval is given to legislation. Open-government groups supported it as an important step forward.

Secret corridor mtg in Ft. Bend switched to public mtg once TURF supporter made a stink!

Link to Chronicle article here.

Kudos to TURF supporter Jenny Hurley for speaking up and questioning why this meeting with our elected officials and the Chamber of Commerce was going to be SECRET (which is standard operating procedure for Perry and his highway department)! Once again, it's BIG BUSINESS teaming up with BIG GOVERNMENT to STEAL our land and hard-earned money to benefit multi-national corporations.

Turning U.S. 59 into I-69: controversial project is in motion
By Zen Zheng
Houston Chronicle
November 01, 2007

A controversial state plan to turn U.S. 59 into Interstate 69, which would run from Laredo to Texarkana, is gaining momentum.
On Oct. 26, I attended a workshop at Sugar Land City Hall held by the I-69 Alliance featuring Texas Transportation Commissioners Ted Houghton and Ned Holmes.

The meeting gathered engineers and planners from Texas Department of Transportation, county judges, county commissioners, municipal officials, economic development council and chamber of commerce heads from communities along the proposed I-69 corridor, as well as a few local residents concerned about the project.

Houghton on Oct. 3 told me that the meeting was closed to the public without giving me an explanation. I decided to go anyway. And it turned out that I had a free pass that day. Jenny Hurley, an officer of the Fort Bend County Democratic Party, said she called the state after reading my article asking why the meeting would be closed to the public. One resident at the workshop also posed the question to Houghton. Houghton said:


I joked with Zen when I told him he couldn't come.

Well, I need to begin cultivating my sense of humor.

Fort Bend County Commissioners Tom Stavinoha and Andy Meyers were among the local officials at the workshop. County Judge Bob Hebert sent his executive assistant D'Neal Krisch instead of making his personal presence.

Hebert on Oct. 3 said "we need the road" but later through Krisch clarified with me that he doesn't have a formal stance on the issue or support the project. Krisch said the county chief welcomes the state effort in seeking local input on the project.

Houghton and Holmes urged local support to the project that they said would bring economic prosperity to the region through speedier cargo delivery to create more robust trade and thousands of new jobs along the route.

But the few residents at the meeting expressed skepticism and concerns about the impact on their quality of life with the creation of a gigantic network of highways, freight and high-speed commuter rails and infrastructure for water, electricity, oil and gas pipelines.

I-69 is part of the Trans-Texas Corridor plan that would eventually link Mexico with Canada through the U.S. heartland.

U.S. 59 is one of the two corridors picked by the state to form the I-69 network. The other corridor extends from Michigan and Illinois south through Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and ends at the terminus of U.S. 77 and U.S. 281 in the Rio Grande Valley.

An environmental impact study for the project is being completed by the state before a series of town hall meetings and public hearings will be scheduled next year.

Houghton said his commission will form advisory committees to assist with the project's planning and development. Each committee would have a maximum 24 members comprising the state transportation agency's staff, local government leaders, port heads, economic development and chamber of commerce officials, and representatives of metropolitan planning organizations.

According to guidelines being considered, committees will be required to mobilize support from the community for the project and to sign agreements to not disclose confidential information furnished them.

Houghton said the goal is to begin I-69 construction within two to three years.

TxDOT can slow speeds on I-35 to drive traffic to SH 130 tollway!

Our highway department and Legislature has handed their authority over road safety and efficient travel to a FOREIGN COMPANY! Ric Williamson actually said the private companies will determine the where the roads go (not Texas citizens and communities), now these HOGS AT THE TROUGH will determine the speed limits, too. In the Governor's counterfeit private toll moratorium bill, SB 792, the Legislature allowed the State to make money if they drive more traffic to a foreign-controlled tollway! The reason the non-compete agreement (mentioned below) doesn't prohibit the planned expansion of I-35 is because they plan to TOLL IT, too! Therefore, it's not a "competing" FREE alternative!

Slower I-35 part of deal on toll road
By Patrick Driscoll
Express-News
11/04/2007

A recent toll road contract that shoehorns market incentives into a government monopoly would reward the state for lowering speed limits on Interstate 35, effectively steering drivers to the toll road.

Graphic
Map of the Texas 130 tollway
The privatization contract for Texas 130 from Austin to Seguin, cutting a parallel path east of I-35, was quietly signed in March amid a legislative furor over whether to freeze such agreements. It includes a controversial clause that penalizes the state for widening or building competing roads.



 

Slower I-35 part of deal on toll road
By Patrick Driscoll
Express-News
11/04/2007

A recent toll road contract that shoehorns market incentives into a government monopoly would reward the state for lowering speed limits on Interstate 35, effectively steering drivers to the toll road.

Graphic
Map of the Texas 130 tollway

The privatization contract for Texas 130 from Austin to Seguin, cutting a parallel path east of I-35, was quietly signed in March amid a legislative furor over whether to freeze such agreements. It includes a controversial clause that penalizes the state for widening or building competing roads.


If a project over the next 50 years — with some exceptions — interferes with Texas 130 toll traffic, the Texas Department of Transportation would have to pay Cintra of Spain and Zachry Construction Corp. of San Antonio for their lost profits.

But the state can also get credit, though not payment, for driving traffic to the tollway, including by lowering posted speeds on I-35.

Not that TxDOT would do that, and certainly not for financial gain, spokeswoman Gaby Garcia said.

"We don't expect to be reducing speed limits on I-35," she said. "They are set by traffic engineering studies and not by economic gain."

But toll critics say a gate is open to the manipulation of I-35 traffic to ensure toll profits, and they don't trust TxDOT as the sentry.

"Our highways are being hijacked for private interests," said Terri Hall of Texans United for Reform and Freedom. "Who's going to rein in this agency? It just baffles me."

To change a speed limit on a road, TxDOT usually follows a complex formula based on the fastest pace set by 85 percent of motorists. But conditions such as crash rates could warrant lower speeds.

Laws and policies can also lower speeds, for reasons such as conserving gas.

"Speed limits are not arbitrarily set," Garcia said.

But just as a speed limit giveth, sometimes it taketh away.

If TxDOT raises the speed limit on I-35, it must pay Cintra-Zachry for any toll losses, according to a maze of requirements in the 192-page toll contract and its 476 pages of support documents.

Oddly, any improvements to the freeway are exempt from the competition clause. Also exempt are projects in existing 25-year plans.

The contract doesn't stop there — it also covers speed limits for the 40 miles of Texas 130 that will run from Seguin to south of Austin, where it'll hook up with another segment that now loops around the city.

Cintra-Zachry will pay TxDOT $25 million upfront if the limit is set at 70 mph but will fatten the offer to $92 million for 80 mph and $125 million for 85 mph, which state law allows. The agency could opt instead to take a growing bite of profits.

Under the privatization deal, TxDOT's first, Cintra-Zachry will finance, build and operate the $1.3 billion tollway in the hope of eventually turning a profit.

Motorists in cars will pay about 15 cents a mile, with rate increases capped to the annual growth of state domestic product. There will be no tollbooths — collections will be done with electronic tags and cameras.

Cintra-Zachry recently began a process to buy the land, and it expects to start construction in a year or two and open the roadway in 2012. The state will handle property disputes.

Congressman Doggett in a smackdown with Sec of Transp. over tolls/Trans TX Corridor

See him on YouTube here.

October 25, 2007 - House Budget Committee Holds Hearing on Surface Transportation Investment

DOGGETT:
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Madam Secretary, for your testimony
and your service. I must say that I'm a bit surprised
by your use of the term "tax and spend," because, of
course, as you know from your long career, the
tax-and-spend approach had its origin under Dwight
David Eisenhower, who felt that the National
Interstate and Defense Highways Act should be paid for
as you go, and that the pay-as-you-go approach was the
appropriate one as the Highway Revenue Act was enacted
at the same time in 1956.
It is true that in the last seven years on
everything this administration has preferred a
borrow-and-spend approach for all of our national
needs. But it would seem to me that the more fiscally
responsible one is to pay for our highways as we
determine we need them.
Now, there is an alternative model that Texas has
really been pioneering with. And as you know, we have
a governor in Texas who seems to have never met a
highway that he didn't think he could toll. If he had
his way, we would have toll roads blossoming in Texas
like the wild flowers in the spring.
I have some concerns about the fact that the
administration in its budget proposal really seems to
want to incentivize more toll roads such as by its
proposal to tax and spend for grants for high- tech
electronic toll booths that would encourage states to
use that means of finance.
Let me ask you if you support the requirement that
no tolling occur on federal highways in the state of
Texas or anywhere else.

PETERS:
Congressman, I'd be happy to answer your question.
The answer is no, the administration does not support
that provision, and let me explain why.

DOGGETT:
Well, because my time is short, and I'll give you
an opportunity to elaborate at the end -- but do you
support prohibiting states from buying back federal
highways that the taxpayers have already paid for in
order to toll those highways?


PETERS:
Congressman, we prefer to let states make those
decisions, and I think one of the fundamental problems
that we have today is that decision-making in too many
cases has been moved away from state and local
government and decisions are being made at the federal
level.

DOGGETT:
Well, I guess the concern is that these highways
were paid for with federal tax dollars. You're
proposing in your budget to encourage the states to
toll more highways, and you've just indicated by your
answers that you do not support restricting tolls on
federal taxpayer-financed highways, and that approve
of the practice of the states coming and buying back
highways taxpayers have already paid for and tolling
them.
And I find that to be very problematic and
something that I'm hearing from many people in Texas
is not the way to go.
And the partner to the tollway on every highway
that the taxpayers have already paid for in Texas is,
of course, the very controversial Trans-Texas
Corridor, where the same governor is proposing to take
swaths of land as wide as 10 miles that would separate
someone's century-owned farm or ranch home from their
pastures and their field.
This has been a very secretive process. As you
know, the House has also passed bipartisan language
concerning the Trans-Texas Corridor.
Is there any federal money of any type going into
the planning of the Trans-Texas Corridor at present?

PETERS:
Congressman, I will have to check on that. I know
at one time there was, but let me check on that and
get back to you.

DOGGETT:
All right. The approach of doing so much of this
in secret and treating our farmers and ranchers as
just so much road kill when it comes to participation
in the process is one that I know bothered not only me
-- bothers not only me but bothers members on both
sides of the aisle here.
That's why the House overwhelmingly approved
legislation directed to the so-called NAFTA
superhighway. I know the administration doesn't
concede there is such a highway.
But as relates to participation in working groups
concerning the Trans-Texas Corridor and the NAFTA
superhighway, if it's to extend beyond Texas, does the
administration support the amendment that the House
overwhelmingly approved in that regard?

PETERS:
Congressman, I would say that we have not taken a
position on that issue yet, but let me explain...

DOGGETT:
Well, we passed it a long time ago. Do you plan to
take a position as this measure moves through
conference one way or the other? Do you object to the
restrictions that the House approved by a vote of
362-63 in July concerning this matter?

PETERS:
Congressman, we believe that state governments
should have much more latitude than they have today to
make decisions.

DOGGETT:
So it sounds to me like you want to give them the
authority to have a secretive process, to build a
10-mile-wide highway, tearing up farms and ranches and
rural communities where these people will not even be
able to access the tollway, perhaps built by a foreign
firm -- that as long as that's the state decision,
you're content to let them do whatever they want to
do?
I think we have some responsibility with federal
tax dollars to try to safeguard property rights and
involve the public in participation in these
decisions.
Let me just close, because I can see my time is
up, and I know the vote is under way, by also
commenting about what you call your dirty little
secret on earmarks.
It is not a dirty little secret that both of the
federal transportation authorization acts were
approved by Republican Congresses with Republican
chairs, that the so-called Bridge to Nowhere was the
project -- a totally Republican project.
There is not one earmark in either of these
transportation acts that would be there if this
administration and the Republican leadership had
wanted to cut them out.
Why is it that the administration has been so
quiet for so long and has not done anything about
these earmarks until the fact that we now finally have
a Democratic Congress?

PETERS:
Well, Congressman, let me take two answers. First
of all, with all respect, you misinterpreted my
comments about the Trans- Texas Corridor.
Second, there is no NAFTA superhighway. There is
no NAFTA superhighway at all. And we certainly believe
in public disclosure as projects are developed.
This administration also has a long record, a
long, long record, in speaking out against earmarks,
speaking out against using the public's money in a way
that is not publicly disclosed.
And we will continue to stand behind that
opposition.

DOGGETT:
Just specifically on the NAFTA superhighway, then,
is there anything, since you believe in letting the
states do essentially whatever they want in this area,
to prevent the Trans-Texas Corridor, when it goes from
Mexico to the Oklahoma border, from being connected to
an Oklahoma Trans-Oklahoma Corridor, and then a Kansas
Trans-Kansas Corridor, all the way up to the Canadian
border?

PETERS:
Congressman, there are restrictions about
connecting to interstate highways, access points to
interstate highways. Any time that a road accesses or
intersects with an interstate highway, that does have
to be approved.

DOGGETT:
But you are putting money into -- you have put
money in the past into the Trans-Texas Corridor.

PETERS:
As I said sir, I will research that and get back
to you.

DOGGETT:
I think you said you had done it in the past. You
weren't sure if you were doing it now.

PETERS:
I said I thought we had, sir.

DOGGETT:
And you said that I have not correctly interpreted
your comments about the Trans-Texas Corridor. Would
you just elaborate on what your position is on the
Trans-Texas Corridor?

PETERS:
I would be happy to, sir. We believe that there
should be a full disclosure process, a process that
involves not only the potential users of a highway but
those who are affected by the highway. This is
required by the National Environmental Protection Act.

And those types of processes, those open public
processes, where the public has an opportunity to
participate in decision-making, is absolutely
something that we do support.

DOGGETT:
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Madam Secretary.

Despite law that forbids it, TxDOT still looking to give 1604 toll project to foreign companies

The article mentions SB 792, the private toll moratorium bill that KILLED the 281/1604 private toll deal. But true to form, TxDOT is breaking the law and pursuing foreign control of 1604 toll lanes anyway. The article also notes that up to nearly $200 million in GAS TAXES may subsidize the toll lanes, making the tolling of these existing corridors a TRIPLE TAX (we've paid a tax for what's already built, our tax money will be used to build the improvements, and then a lifetime TOLL TAX on top of that)!

Three to bid on U.S. 281 toll road project
10/24/2007
By Patrick Driscoll
Express-News

Three private groups are now in the hunt to build U.S. 281 toll lanes, but two big foreign companies competing just a short while ago to build and lease a larger toll network here have dropped out.The Alamo Regional Mobility Authority board voted Wednesday to let all three teams submit plans to rebuild U.S. 281 north of Loop 1604 into a tollway with free access roads by 2012. It's the fledging agency's first project.

"Goodness knows we have been two and a half years getting here," board member Bob Thompson said. "Maybe it's even more important to see the confidence of these three large companies. It adds some credibility, it adds some stature to what we're trying to do."

The three teams include 29 construction, engineering and public affairs companies.

Fluor Enterprises Inc. of Irving and Balfour Beatty Infrastructure Inc. of Atlanta lead the Cibolo Creek Infrastructure team. Both joined to develop the Texas 130 toll road east of Austin.

Zachry Construction Corp. of San Antonio and Texas Sterling Construction Co. of Houston lead the other teams.


Zachry joined with Cintra of Spain to produce a plan for Trans-Texas Corridor toll lanes and rail lines that would parallel Interstate 35, and in 2005 offered to build and lease a 47-mile toll network on U.S. 281 and Loop 1604 in San Antonio.

But Cintra isn't part of the group angling to add U.S. 281 toll lanes now.

A tolling bill from last spring's legislative session busted plans for the San Antonio network by banning privatization of U.S. 281 toll lanes.

Now Texas Department of Transportation officials say they're working with Cintra and Zachry, as well as the other international bidder, Macquarie of Australia, to see if privatizing Loop 1604 toll lanes would make financial sense without U.S. 281 in the package.

Mobility Authority officials, saying they want to keep toll rates "reasonable," want to develop Loop 1604 toll lanes without leasing them and losing some of the profits.

On the U.S. 281 tollway, motorists would pay 17 cents a mile at the start, with fees rising 2.75 percent a year until 2017 and then 3 percent annually after that, under a plan the authority board approved Wednesday.

The toll lanes would go from Loop 1604 to Marshall Road or Comal County, depending on whether regional planners allocate $69 million or $112 million in state funds to subsidize the project. Another $80 million subsidy could be needed for five interchange connectors at Loop 1604.

"There isn't surplus revenue in the case of 281," authority Director Terry Brechtel said.

The latest estimates for the U.S. 281 tollway — in 2006 dollars — are $426 million for construction and $220 million for upkeep over 40 years.

On Monday, Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom filed a lawsuit to challenge the makeup and procedures of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, which oversees federal transportation dollars and is set to approve U.S. 281 toll rates in December.

The lawsuit, which claims that discussion and debate are being shut down, seeks to remove nonelected officials from the planning board.

Toll road advocates call the lawsuit frivolous.

Giuliani's troubling business connections...including to Cintra, builder of Trans Texas Corridor

Link to article here.

Remember that this same law firm, Bracewell and Giuliani is the sole law firm representing the Spanish company Cintra who won the rights to build the Trans Texas Corridor. His firm also advised Cintra on the US 121 privatized toll road deal in the Dallas area that was later snatched from Cintra due to the controversy of gouging citizens with high tolls to drive on public highways and losing control of our public infrastructure to foreign companies.

Giuliani Still Working at Firm He Promised to Leave
By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 30, 2007; A06
Ten months into his presidential bid, Rudolph W. Giuliani continues to work part time at the security consulting firm he promised to leave this past spring to focus on his pursuit of the Republican nomination.

Giuliani's continuing involvement with a firm catering to corporate clients makes him unique among Republican contenders. It also complicates the task of separating his firm's assets from his campaign spending.

Several of the firm's employees do volunteer work for his campaign. And Giuliani did not decide until mid-June, six months after he entered the race, to bill his campaign for the cost of the security detail traveling with him on campaign trips; before then, the firm paid the expense.


Aides at Giuliani Partners in New York and with his campaign confirmed that he continues working part time at the firm. They declined to answer specific questions about the nature of his efforts, his compensation or the amount of time he spends there.

"Mayor Giuliani spends the majority of his time on the campaign," Giuliani Partners spokeswoman Sunny Mindel said, declining to be more specific.

Federal election laws prohibit Giuliani's firm from absorbing costs or providing services that legally should be covered by political donations, campaign experts said.

"This is a lawyer's nightmare," said Republican political consultant Scott Reed, who ran the 1996 presidential bid of then-Sen. Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) but is not aligned with a presidential campaign in this race. "I don't think the vulnerability is with voters on the level of his commitment to the race. The concern is really about FEC violations and whether anything this corporation does to help him essentially is making a contribution to run for president in the form of staff time, materials, travel billing or security."

Giuliani's aides said the firm and the campaign comply with all federal election rules and laws.

Giuliani formed the firm after he left the New York mayor's office in 2002. He built upon the reputation he earned while helping the city recover from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to advise clients across the world on security issues.

The clients have included civic leaders in Mexico City, who sought Giuliani's expertise on law enforcement strategies; companies that wanted to build a post-Sept. 11 security plan; and those that sought strategic advice on how to win business in the growing homeland security sector.

Giuliani's firm has grossed more than $100 million since its formation. It has employed many of the same political insiders who worked around Giuliani during his mayoral years, such as former chief of staff Anthony V. Carbonetti, former fire chief Thomas Von Essen and former corporation counsel Michael D. Hess. It also includes former FBI executive Pasquale J. D'Amuro, a highly regarded terrorism expert.

Last year, Giuliani earned about $4.1 million from the firm, according to the presidential campaign financial disclosure report he filed in May.

Because the firm represents many security interests, some of which might have business before the federal government, Giuliani faced questions about his continuing employment there. He announced in April that he planned to leave the firm to concentrate entirely on the campaign.

"I'm largely out of it, and I'm pretty much going to be out of it at some point pretty soon," he told reporters on April 4 while campaigning in South Carolina.

Six months later, he continues to do some work at the company.

Aides refused to discuss the exact nature of the work, but Hess, in an interview with The Washington Post earlier this year, provided some insight into Giuliani's role in the firm since he became a candidate.

"When Rudy is here, he is hands-on," Hess said in late April. "He does discuss all the different matters. When we get a client, sometimes they are people Rudy knows and sometimes others of us know or hear about them. Invariably, a new client will want to meet with Rudy, and this was frequent a while ago, and it has become less frequent as he is going around on his campaigning."

Hess said Giuliani also tries to attend the firm's strategic meetings when he is in New York, gatherings that resemble the early-morning staff meetings he held as mayor.

"Over the years since we've been here, we do have frequent meetings. They varied with the time Rudy has. Sometimes Rudy is in New York a lot, and sometimes he is here less," Hess said. "They are reminiscent of staff meetings that we had in City Hall. He was somewhat famous for having the 8 a.m. meeting with about a dozen or 15 commissioners. Likewise, we have staff meetings here."

During an interview in June with CNBC's Larry Kudlow, Giuliani said that he was spending no more than 10 percent of his time doing work for the firm while he was campaigning and that he planned to take a leave of absence.

"I would have thought during the general election, but it seems to me nowadays, with all these things moving up, probably sometime during the primaries," Giuliani said about the timing of his leaving. "But right now I'd say I'm 95 percent campaigning, maybe 5 to 10 percent trying to settle up last-minute things."

Giuliani has ended another of his more lucrative private ventures -- giving paid speeches. The former mayor, popular on the motivational speaking tour, earned about $11 million in speech and book fees last year but stopped giving such speeches in February.

Giuliani falls in the middle of the presidential field when it comes to job commitments. Several candidates have full-time jobs as members of Congress, such as Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), GOP Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), and Republican Reps. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), Tom Tancredo (Colo.) and Ron Paul (Tex.).

But the two Republicans closest to Giuliani in the polls -- former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney -- are multimillionaires who have no private-sector jobs.

Reed said if he were managing Giuliani, another multimillionaire, he would have advised the candidate to step aside from his firm as soon as the race started.

"I think it always is wise to close down all of these other efforts . . . so that, one, you give the campaign 100 percent, and two, you don't give your political enemies possible ammunition," he said.

One concern among ethics experts is that Giuliani's continuing affiliation with the firm might create a public perception that clients with business that could be affected by a Giuliani presidency might hire the firm to curry favor.

The firm's past clients had many connections to government. They include:

• Purdue Pharma, which resolved a lengthy Drug Enforcement Administration investigation into the security of its OxyContin painkiller with only a fine, with the Giuliani firm's help.

• A confessed drug smuggler who hired Giuliani to help ensure that his company could do security consulting business with the federal government in the post-Sept. 11 period.

• The horse-racing industry, which hired Giuliani's firm to review the security of its betting systems after a wagering scandal shook public confidence.

• BioOne, a company that can do biological cleanups, such as its cleaning of a Florida media building after the 2001 anthrax attacks.

• Energy giant Entergy, which hired Giuliani's firm to help tighten its security.

In addition, Giuliani's firm created a spinoff called Giuliani Capital Advisors, which advised companies on bankruptcies and expansion in the homeland security marketplace. Giuliani sold that arm of the firm earlier this year.

Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

Say "No" to more bond debt for wasteful spending...No on Prop 12

Link to article here. Ms. Ross gets it right when she says bond elections should not be a blank check! She rightly states Texans shouldn't even be considering bonds when the State has such a BIG surplus...Amen!

So Little to Show
By Tara Ross
Published: 10-30-07

Well, I never thought I’d say it, but I agree with Dennis Kucinich. His opening statement in a recent House subcommittee meeting was exactly right.

State and local governments are imprudent and wasteful in the items that they choose to finance with tax-exempt government bonds. The public finds itself deep in debt, often with little to show for it.

As Kucinich noted, a bridge in Minnesota should not collapse while the baseball team down the road gets a new publicly financed stadium. Nor should New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Chicago have publicly financed sports stadiums when nearly 200 structurally deficient bridges can be found in or near these cities.

Everyone bears a portion of the blame. Congress has left too many loopholes in tax laws, quietly allowing frivolous and nonessential projects to be financed at public expense. Closer to home, state and local officials rely on bonds to finance all sorts of projects—whether these projects properly belong in the governmental realm or not.

These elected officials want credit for, say, curing cancer or creating a park. Let’s face it: A new Cowboys stadium makes for a snazzier campaign commercial than fixing potholes. But when it comes right down to it, voters have only themselves to blame. Virtually any time bond propositions are presented, voters seem to have an automatic “FOR” voting reflex.
Sadly, this auto-FOR is likely to rear its ugly head again during the impending November 6 elections.

Voters apparently believe that tax-exempt bonds present one never-ending stream of income. Money grows on the tax-exempt bond tree. Worse, voters seem unable to differentiate between items that are appropriately the target of tax-exempt public financing and other items that should instead be financed by private enterprise. Voters seem oblivious to the fact that tax-exempt financing ensures that future generations will be in debt, complete with the high tax burdens required to repay these bonds.

In two weeks, voters will be asked to cast ballots on several bond propositions. One has to wonder why bonds are being proposed—at all—when Texas has such a big surplus. Future generations should not be saddled with nearly $10 billion in new debt. Texans should prioritize their spending and use the money that they already have on hand.

The most emotionally appealing bond proposition on the ballot is Proposition 15, which promises $3 billion over ten years toward cancer research. Who doesn’t want to cure cancer? And, of course, Lance Armstrong’s appeals on behalf of the bonds are hard to resist. But don’t fall prey to the automatic “FOR!” reflex.

Instead, give some thought to whether this initiative is properly handled by the government, particularly when so many private research facilities already exist. If the bonds are approved, the funds would be used to create the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. Do you hear that giant sucking sound?

That’s the sound of cancer research dollars being sucked into overhead for yet another government bureaucracy. Count on many dollars being wasted because the legislature has not created a structure to hold researchers at the Institute accountable.

Indeed, medical research, by its very nature, can’t be effectively benchmarked for success in the way that other projects can be. Finally, even assuming that this item is properly financed with public money, there is no need for taxpayers to take on debt to finance it. Use of the budget surplus would allow taxpayers to save as much as $1.6 billion in interest that would otherwise need to be paid to bondholders.

Another emotionally appealing bond proposition is Proposition 2, which would provide money for student college loans. Again, voters should stop and think before going with the automatic “FOR” reflex. Student loans are already available from many sources, including the federal government. Indeed so many loans are available that the supply/demand curve in higher education has been thrown off.

Tuition rates have skyrocketed in part because one factor that should control these rates—the affordability of education—has been compromised by the ease with which students can obtain loans. No matter how high the cost of education, students can borrow enough to pay the bill. In no other area can so much be borrowed, practically at will. Schools thus have little incentive to keep prices reasonable. Making more government loans accessible would undermine the supply/demand curve even more. Must Texans go into debt over this?
The final bond propositions on the ballot would pay for various repairs, maintenance projects, highway improvements, and developments in distressed communities (Props 4, 12, and 16). These propositions at least arguably fall into the realm in which the government may appropriately act. Unfortunately, the propositions are too vague regarding the intended uses for the funds. Taxpayers deserve to know, specifically, what the government intends to do with their money.

Bond proposals should not operate like blank checks. And one continues to wonder why so much debt is being accumulated when the state has a surplus. The legislature should at least consider whether the surplus can finance these projects. Americans for Prosperity has suggested financing any cost over and above the surplus by redirecting a portion of the gasoline tax. Moreover, the Texas Department of Transportation can still issue up to $3 billion in bonds from a referendum passed in 2003. These funds should be used before taxpayers are asked to authorize still more debt.
Voters these days like to complain that federal and state governments are spending too much money. And they may sympathize with Kucinich’s observation that the vast amount of spending has not greatly benefited taxpayers. November 6 is a chance to hold the line on at least a little governmental spending, if voters choose to take advantage of the opportunity.

U.S. Dollar in free-fall; high gas prices stoke recession worries

Link to article here.

Data add to gloom on US economy
By Francesco Guerrera, Jonathan Birchall and Daniel Pimlott in New York
Published: October 30, 2007

A build-up of bearish data fueled fears of a US economic slowdown on Tuesday as consumer confidence slumped to a two-year low and house prices in big cities suffered their biggest drop in 16 years.
The growing evidence that the credit squeeze and housing meltdown are spreading to the rest of the domestic economy will increase pressure on the Federal Reserve to set aside concerns over rising inflation and cut interest rates on Wednesday.


Blue chips such as Procter & Gamble and US Steel added to the gloom with results that disappointed investors and contributed to a 0.7 per cent fall in the S&P 500 by the close in New York trading.

The negative reaction to earnings by two companies with global operations reflects deepening investor concerns that the weak dollar and solid global economic growth might not be enough to help corporate America offset a slowdown.

With experts warning that the next few months will bring more bad news from consumers and the housing market, investors will be looking to the monetary authorities’ decision, and their closely watched comments, to boost sentiment.

“The housing market, credit problems and high gasoline prices are casting a cloud over consumer confidence and the economy,” said Lynn Franco at the Conference Board, a research organisation. According to the board, consumer confidence fell sharply in October and was now at its lowest level since the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in October 2005.

The October drop in the monthly consumer confidence index was bigger than expected and raised the prospect of a marked deterioration in business conditions in sectors such as retail and consumer goods during the holiday shopping season.

The resilience of US consumers – a key driver of economic growth in the US and in emerging markets such as China – was further tested by a downbeat report on house prices. The Case-Shiller index showed that house prices in 10 metropolitan areas were 5 per cent lower in August compared with the year before, the biggest drop since the property crash of 1991.

“The fall in home prices is showing no real signs of a slowdown or turnround,” said Robert Shiller, chief economist at MacroMarkets. “There is really no positive news in today’s report.”

P&G, the consumer product group, said its US business, which accounts for about half of its sales, had been affected by domestic economic woes.

“We did see a slight slowdown in the US market growth...and that’s had some impact on the business,” Clayt Daley, chief financial officer, said. AG Lafley, chief executive, played down the threat of a US recession and said demand for P&G’s branded products remained solid.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

__________________________________________

Link to article here.AP
Dollar Hits New Lows on Economic Data
Tuesday October 30, 2007
By Tali Arbel, AP Business Writer


Dollar Sinks to 26-Year Low Vs. Pound, Record Low Against Euro As Economic Data Disappoints

NEW YORK (AP) -- The dollar fell to a new record low against the euro and a 26-year low against the British pound Tuesday after lower-than-expected consumer confidence data was released and ahead of Wednesday's Federal Reserve interest rate decision.The dollar slid against the euro throughout the afternoon, as the euro peaked at $1.4440, the latest in a string of all-time highs against the dollar, before settling at $1.4434. The euro had finished at $1.4424 in New York late Monday, the same day it hit its last record of $1.4438.

The pound rose to $2.0679 in late New York trading Tuesday -- a level last seen in 1981, when Diana married Prince Charles and Margaret Thatcher was prime minister.

The British currency was powered by expectations that the Bank of England will keep its benchmark interest rate at 5.75 percent next week. The pound had finished at $2.0619 in New York late Monday.

The Canadian dollar hit a new 47-year high of $1.0510 Tuesday, according to Dow Jones' Interbank foreign exchange rates, before settling at $1.0488, down from $1.0495 in late New York trading Monday. The U.S. dollar bought 95.35 Canadian cents.

The Canadian dollar is a commodity-backed currency, benefiting when prices of its exports rise. Canada is a major producer of oil, and crude prices have risen 35 percent since August, hitting a string of record highs.

The euro and the Canadian dollar have been climbing steadily against the dollar, regularly touching new highs since August amid fears over the health of the U.S. economy -- worries stoked by the subprime credit crisis and disappointing economic reports -- and rising oil prices.

Tuesday saw the release of more disheartening economic data, as the Conference Board reported that its Consumer Confidence Index fell to 95.6 -- its lowest level since October 2005 -- from a revised 99.5 in September. It is the index's third consecutive monthly drop and signals consumers' insecurities over the economy and their jobs.

Other critical economic reports scheduled for the rest of week include an advance report on gross domestic product and the releases of figures on third-quarter manufacturing activity and October employment.

Markets expect the U.S. Federal Reserve to cut its key interest rate from its current level of 4.75 percent Wednesday -- adding to an unexpectedly bold half-point cut last month.

Although lower interest rates can jump-start an economy, they can weaken a currency as investors transfer funds to countries where their deposits and fixed-income investments bring higher returns. Higher rates can boost a currency.

"The weakening of the dollar today came after the consumer confidence numbers came in. The market's focusing more on economic data and what its implications are for December rather than tomorrow's rate cut," said Bob Sinche, head of global foreign exchange strategy at Bank of America Corp., adding that investors have already priced in a 25-basis point cut for October, and the dollar probably would not react strongly to tomorrow's rate cut announcement.

The decline of the dollar makes U.S. exports cheaper abroad, which could boost corporate earnings and may increase tourism at home. However, prices of foreign-made goods, such as French wine and Canadian maple syrup.

In other trading, the dollar rose slightly against the Japanese currency to 114.77 yen from 114.59 yen, but fell against the Swiss franc to 1.1600, from 1.1651 Swiss francs late Monday.

China investing in privatized toll roads/infrastructure deals...the takeover continues

Link to article here. Considering China's provocative military actions (militarizing space by demonstrating their ability to explode satellites, stalking our ships off the coast of Japan, stealing military secrets most recently by hacking Pentagon computers and trying to buy the company that makes the Pentagon's software to protect it from hackers) and its aggressive push to make the U.S. dependent on its steady stream of cheap goods (hence the reason for the Trans Texas Corridor and NAFTA superhighways), it's foolish and dangerous to allow the Communist Chinese to control our infrastructure, too! This also highlights the problem of countries (like Australia, U.S., and China) investing public pension funds in these controversial and risky infrastructure deals when gas prices have risen unabated since Katrina.

State funds and banks lead China’s hunt
By Richard McGregor in Beijing
Published: October 30 2007 22:03

China’s National Council for Social Security Fund is an unlikely candidate to buy into US private equity groups, but the disclosure in Tuesday’s Financial Times that it has held preliminary talks about buying stakes in companies such as Carlyle and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts underlines how dramatically China’s global ambitions have grown.

The fund joins a number of large state institutions investing overseas, such as China Investment Corp, the newly-established sovereign fund, and China Development Bank, a specialist lender for infrastructure projects.

Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, the country’s largest lender, last week struck a deal to pay $5.56bn for a stake in Standard Bank in South Africa, and Citic Securities recently bought into the troubled US firm Bear Stearns. Other big Chinese commercial banks are hunting for deals.


The sudden flood of overseas deals runs parallel with a wave of foreign equity investment by Chinese ­entities through mandates issued by the securities ­regulator.

Since September, $37bn (£17.9bn, €25.6bn) in subscriptions has been received by four funds each approved to raise $16bn. JPMorgan says it expects Beijing to approve another $20bn by mid-December and a total of up to $90bn by the end of next year.

The broad framework allowing investment overseas has been laid down gradually by the central government in the last three years or so, with a variety of policy objectives in mind.

The portfolio investment is driven by a need to gain greater returns and spread risks away from the domestic market, as well as relieve the pressure on the financial system from huge capital inflows.

CDB, meanwhile, is heading overseas with a quite ­different mandate – to support Chinese investment in Africa and to test its ambitions to become a force in global development finance.

The drive offshore by China’s big state banks, although under the wary eye of the regulators, is more driven by their commercial ambitions than a central government plan.

“I don’t really see [the banks] as being driven by the state pushing people out the door, overseas,” said Jonathan Anderson, of UBS, in Hong Kong. “This is primarily being driven by the corporates themselves.”

For deal-hungry global investment banks, the Chinese institutions they once chased for overseas stock market listings are now becoming valuable merger and acquisition clients.

“Chinese companies are being assiduously courted by dealmakers – and no wonder. They are cash-rich and the beneficiaries of a bull market,” said Jing Ulrich, of JPMorgan, in Hong Kong.

However, one common challenge facing the Chinese institutions is the lack of global experience, both in investing overseas and running enterprises in foreign countries.

In the case of the social security fund, its most experienced global manager, Gao Xiqing, who has extensive experience on Wall St, has been shifted in recent months to a senior post at the sovereign fund.

The fund’s talks with US firms surprised some market observers, who say they would not have expected it to tie up money in large, illiquid investments.

However, the fund might be being driven by a sense of competition with other Chinese state investors and may have pressed to be allowed access to similar investment opportunities.

For all the headlines, the wave of Chinese capital heading overseas is at an early stage and its impact on markets, perhaps aside from Hong Kong, is limited in terms of investments flows. “They are very small players at the moment,” said Mr Anderson.

Politically and psychologically, however, the impact is much larger.

Background

Established in 2000, the National Council for Social Security Fund was part of China’s strategy to fill the gaping holes left in its pension policies by the collapse of large swathes of state industry.

The NCSSF does not attempt to cover the entire country’s pension needs, but is a kind of national pension fund of last resort, with no designated members eligible for benefits. It has assets Rmb460bn ($62bn, €43bn, £30bn).

Much revenue came from the offshore initial public offerings of state companies, which had to put 10 per cent of money raised into the fund.

Watch ARMA lock-in toll road option BEFORE new 281 study even starts

View ARMA Board Member, Jim Reed, admit at the October 27 SAMPO meeting that they plan to be the lead environmental study agency since they have no reason to keep their doors open without their 281 toll slush fund. So to find a way to justify their existence at taxpayer expense, they're seeking to rig the next round of environmental work for 281, 1604, and I-35 (which would clearly bias these projects in favor of toll roads) before a new study even begins! A clear violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Video Unavailable

Bexar County Judge: Toll Opponents "Crazy," "Dangerous"

Link to story here. The pro-tollers have come unhinged! Look who can't win on the arguments and feels the need to drag a political debate into the mud and muck with name calling...Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff. First, we're called PIGS now "crazy" and "dangerous."

Here's what's crazy:
-Charging us over and over again for what's already built and paid for.
-Taking our gas tax plan for overpasses on 281 that's been funded since 2003 and turning it into a cash cow, targeted, DOUBLE tax toll scheme.
-The Legislature stealing $10 billion from our gas taxes and later saying there's no money for roads.
-Twice passing a Bexar County Commissioners Court Resolution AGAINST TOLLING EXISTING ROADS and then allowing them to toll existing corridors all over Bexar County.
-Exploding the cost of transportation at a time with record high gas prices which will further hurt the economy and the County's sales tax and property tax base.

Here's what's dangerous:
-Throwing up stop lights, orange cones, and cement barriers all over the county causing hazardous road conditions, delays, and accidents.
-Allowing continued development in Northern Bexar County without keeping up with road capacity which ensured the intersection of 281 and 1604 would sit atop the city’s “Top 10 Crash Locations” list, where it has stayed since 2004.
-Refusing to install the overpass at a DANGEROUS intersection, 281/Borgfeld, where people have DIED when they've had the money to do it since 2003!

Apparently our elected officials are finally taking notice of the public outcry, but it's clear they haven't gotten the message. We don't want or need toll roads...stop raiding our gas taxes, stop spending our money on illegal ad campaigns and hidden cameras in orange barrels, install the overpasses that are already paid for, index the gas tax, and be done with it.

Wolff: Toll Opponents "Crazy," "Dangerous"
Judge rips into toll critics in 'State of the County' speech
By Jim Forsyth, WOAI
October 25, 2007

Bexar County Judge Nelson W. Wolff used his State of the County address today to tear into opponents of toll roads in Bexar County, saying they are 'crazy' and 'dangerous' and suggesting once that if he 'named the other members of Commissioner's Court who support toll roads it might endanger their lives.'

Wolff said toll roads are 'the right way,' and he urged the Chamber of Commerce audience to cheer Metropolitan Planning Organization Chair Sheila McNeil, who was sued along with the MPO this week by toll road opponents who claim that the organization is illegally pushing for toll roads.

"We have some people who have had to take a lot of heat," Wolff said. "One of them is Sheila McNeil who is the head of the MPO. Sheila, stand up. We owe you a round of applause for taking the heat from these crazy people who are jamming it down your throat every day!"

Wolff has been a long time supporter of toll roads, and he has mentioned the importance of building toll roads in his previous two State of the County speeches. But the vehemence of his denunciation of toll road opponents surprised some in his generally pro toll audience. Wolff didn't mention by name which toll road opponents he thinks are 'crazy' or 'dangerous' but he did cite an incident following a meeting to discuss toll roads.

"We had an incident not too long ago, where the anti toll road people were here and sort of jumped (Regional Mobility Authority Chairman) Bill Thornton and I in the parking lot. I tried to get away from him and he kept following me. I finally turned around and asked him to get away from me, and he said 'give me your best shot.' I called the deputy across the street, and he came over and kept him away from me. Let me tell you, they are dangerous people."

"We're barely holding on with a three two vote on Commissioners Court supporting this project," Wolff said. "I won't tell you who the other two commissioners are, I don't want to endanger their lives."

Lyle Larson and Tommy Adkisson are toll road opponents on Commissioner's Court.

Then, Wolff suggested that residents should be grateful that toll roads are being built.

"The roads on the side will be free, the toll lanes will be in the middle, you don't have to get onto the toll lane, you should be happy we're building it, because there will be less traffic on the free lanes."

Wolff said he opposes any concessions agreement which would allow "a company from " to build the toll roads, a reference to the Cintra-Zachry partnership which has the contract to build 40 miles of the State Highway 130 toll road.

"TexDOT wants to give it (the US 281 toll lane construction contract) to a company from Spain," Wolff said. "We prefer that the public be involved. We need to stick with the public sector, we need to keep the tolls as low as possible, and allow that money to stay right here and not go someplace else, whether it be or someplace else in

Elsewhere in his State of the County speech, Wolff said he anticipates suggestions on an estimated $300 million dollar venue tax renewal proposal to be submitted to Commissioners Court by December, and a vote could be called on the issue next spring. He says officials are considering four potential uses for the venue tax money. Sports complexes, including facilities at UTSA, which could be built inside the existing Municipal Auditorium, expansion of the Riverwalk south and north, and improvements to the AT&T Center.

TURF v. MPO press conference on YouTube

[This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.]

Lawsuit against MPO makes front page, top of the fold!

Link to article here. FYI, the 281 lawsuit filed in federal court in December of 2005 required a new environmental study, but NOTHING prevents TxDOT from moving forward with the FREEway improvements to 281. It only stopped the TOLLWAY! The blame for any cost escalations rest solely on TxDOT and the politicians who enable them. We've done everything humanly possible to force TxDOT to revert back to the gas tax plan (like this MPO vote in January 2007) and get the fix installed years ago!

Tollway foes suing again
By Patrick Driscoll
Express-News
10/23/2007
With a U.S. 281 tollway plan racing toward the finish line, critics Monday filed yet another lawsuit they hope will slam on the brakes.

This time, they went to a federal court in San Antonio and reached back to the First and 14th amendments of the Constitution, which protect freedom of speech and provide equal protection under the law.

The lawsuit seeks to remove non-elected officials from the Metropolitan Planning Organization board and to ban Sheila McNeil, a city councilwoman who serves as chairwoman, from squelching some discussions on toll issues.

"The people of Texas are fed up with out-of-control, abusive government," said Terri Hall of Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom. "This is taxation without representation."


Planning organization Director Isidro Martinez said federal law dealing with local oversight of transportation funds calls for staff officials from major agencies as well as elected leaders to serve on such boards.

On the Web
• Blog: Move It!
More coverage
 KENS video: Toll road opponents file second lawsuit against city

Eleven of the 19 members of the planning board have been elected to city councils, the Bexar County Commissioners Court and the Legislature.

"It's just the way we've always done it," he said. "I guess we'll just have to wait and see."

McNeil said it's disappointing that no one first tried to resolve differences with her.

"Whoever's filing a lawsuit has not come to me and asked me to reconsider or do anything," she said. "It's a waste of court time."

Board member David Leibowitz, a state representative, said McNeil has repeatedly blocked consideration of a resolution that would advise the Texas Department of Transportation to stop spending up to $9 million to promote toll roads.

McNeil put the resolution on last month's agenda but, she said, pulled it after reading it. She said an unwritten policy lets the chairwoman set the agendas.

"It got inadvertently put on the agenda," she told the board last month. "It is not a matter for this MPO. We're a planning organization. We don't tell other organizations or entities how to spend their money."

The maneuver was just the latest to spark the lawsuit, Hall said. Others include a split vote in July to push aside a toll critic and install McNeil as chairwoman, and a sudden policy change in May to try to keep a toll advocate on the board despite leaving elected office.

San Antonio has four council members on the board, more than any other entity. The city also has two staff officials who serve, and they typically vote with their bosses.

"We've done everything in our power to exert the political pressure to change this unconstitutional board," Hall said. "But when a powerful unelected voting bloc is allowed to persist unchecked, we have no choice but go to court."

The lawsuit's lead attorney, David Van Os, who last year ran as the Democratic candidate for state attorney general, said he'll ask for a hearing before the planning board meets Dec. 3.

In December, the board plans to set U.S. 281 toll rates and shift more public money to subsidize the toll road, from $69 million allocated now to $112 million. With the extra funds, the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority could build 8 miles of tollway instead of 4.

The mobility authority hopes to start construction next summer and open the toll road in 2012, with express lanes running from Loop 1604 to either Marshall Road or Comal County. Toll rates might start at 17 cents a mile for cars and rise 2.75 percent a year through 2017 and then 3 percent annually.

But that's if the project doesn't get shoved into a legal ditch. A 2005 lawsuit filed in a state district court forced more environmental study, which stopped work for more than two years. Construction costs have since gone up by a third.

Subcategories

Eminent Domain

Video

Page 92 of 103

Latest News

Latest Press Releases